Spending caps prevent full flow of information

JIM SUTTON

Published 4:00 am, Thursday, May 20, 1999

1999-05-20 04:00:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- ART SOMETIMES contradicts life. The San Francisco Ethics Commission decided last week that candidates in The City's district elections for the Board of Supervisors next year should be limited to $75,000 on campaign spending (plus another $20,000 for expenses if a runoff is necessary).

Within the hour, Susan Keane, Brooke Shield's character on the "Suddenly Susan" TV sitcom set in San Francisco, struggled to raise money for her fledgling Board of Supervisors race against pro wrestler Hulk Hogan.

As the commissioners argued that candidates should run their campaigns by going door-to-door rather than by mailing literature, Susan was trying to raise $30,000 to fund last-minute TV ads to respond to Hogan's unfounded criticisms.

The Ethics Commission voted to place its recommended changes on the November ballot so voters can decide whether to reduce the current citywide spending limit of $250,000 for supervisorial candidates. (Under current law, candidates who agree to the voluntary limits may take individual contributions of up to $500 per contributor; those who don't comply are limited by law to individual donations no higher than $150.)

Elementary school in Oakland opens time capsule from 1927San Francisco Chronicle

Brides of March walk through San FranciscoSan Francisco Chronicle

WildCare rescues Western scrub jay from rodent glue trapWildCare

The Regulars: The CarpenterJessica Christian

Massive fire in San Francisco's North BeachDavid Essling

Although $75,000 may sound like more than enough to run an effective supervisorial campaign, money goes pretty quickly in a city like San Francisco. Candidates are expected to maintain a Web site, meet with dozens of neighborhood political clubs and develop position papers on issues ranging from new parking meter technologies to sweatshops in Thailand. Spread over the 65,000 or so residents in each supervisorial district, $75,000 comes out to only $1.15 per person - less than San Franciscans spend on a cup of coffee and only a little more than they spend for a ride on Muni.

A single campaign mailer costs $15,000. One radio spot: $7,500. Office space: $1,500 per month. A day-to-day campaign manager: $3,000 per month. A computer and software to file electronic campaign reports: $2,500, plus $2,000 per month for a bookkeeper, and $200 per hour for an attorney to explain the maze of campaign finance laws.

But what if these limits stop a candidate from speaking at the endorsement meeting of the Sunset District Democratic Club because she could not afford a campaign manager to keep track of her schedule?

What if a candidate cannot send out information about his stance on hustling the homeless out of Hallidie Plaza because the postage would put him over budget?

At the Ethics Commission's hearings on this issue, speaker after speaker bemoaned the high costs of campaigning and promoted grassroots activities.

Terence Hallinan, the district attorney, and Tom Ammiano, president of the Board of Supervisors, bragged that their campaigns, based on volunteer support, have won several elections despite being outspent by opponents. If two of The City's most successful politicians have achieved electoral victories without spending a lot of money, then San Francisco is obviously not a city where votes can be bought.

Not only does a spending cap decrease the quantity and quality of the issues discussed in campaigns, it also infringes on candidates' First Amendment rights.

Free speech costs money. Although we may idealize a candidate relying on volunteers, holding rallies and going door-to-door, candidates (who presumably must also work for a living) simply do not have enough time to talk directly to every voter.

Limiting the amount of money limits the amount of information the candidate can get to voters, thereby directly infringing on First Amendment rights.

In TV's version of San Francisco, Susan was able to raise her last-minute campaign cash and air her commercials.

Life, of course, does not always imitate art. In real-life San Francisco as envisioned by the Ethics Commission, Susan would not have been able to communicate with the voters, and Hulk Hogan would be running City Hall. The real losers would be the voters.

Examiner contributor Jim Sutton is a partner in the San Francisco law firm of Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, which specializes in election law.&lt;